Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="payn" data-source="post: 8695997" data-attributes="member: 90374">I have moved beyond using actual puzzles in game, and its likely for this exact reason. I want the players to be immersed in playing the characters and exploring the story. Using actual riddles and puzzles to solve breaks down that wall.When I did do puzzles, I wouldn't go so far as saying the fighter is too dumb to know. A lot of this is that the puzzles and riddles are a group exercise and the clever player was likely the only one in the group to care and know how to solve it. As much fun as it seemed in GM prep, the table hated it as it slowed the game to a crawl. Making the clever player sit back and watch the struggle was certainly a recipe for a crappy session.Also, not being smart doesn't mean you cant solve puzzles. Each one is unique, and if you had experience with it in the past, you likely will have an easier time solving it in the future. This seems more wisdom based to me than intelligence. It makes things complicated so simply saying you lack the intelligence (or have an abundance) so you can/cant solve this isn't something I'm going to rule as a GM.What do I gate with intelligence in games? Things that seem to make sense. Like deciphering a language or operating/hacking a computer. Everybody gets a chance, but its going to be higher successes for the intelligence guy. The players are usually good about not stepping on each others toes in the instance of playing the &quot;smart guy&quot; or the &quot;strong man&quot; etc...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="payn, post: 8695997, member: 90374"] I have moved beyond using actual puzzles in game, and its likely for this exact reason. I want the players to be immersed in playing the characters and exploring the story. Using actual riddles and puzzles to solve breaks down that wall. When I did do puzzles, I wouldn't go so far as saying the fighter is too dumb to know. A lot of this is that the puzzles and riddles are a group exercise and the clever player was likely the only one in the group to care and know how to solve it. As much fun as it seemed in GM prep, the table hated it as it slowed the game to a crawl. Making the clever player sit back and watch the struggle was certainly a recipe for a crappy session. Also, not being smart doesn't mean you cant solve puzzles. Each one is unique, and if you had experience with it in the past, you likely will have an easier time solving it in the future. This seems more wisdom based to me than intelligence. It makes things complicated so simply saying you lack the intelligence (or have an abundance) so you can/cant solve this isn't something I'm going to rule as a GM. What do I gate with intelligence in games? Things that seem to make sense. Like deciphering a language or operating/hacking a computer. Everybody gets a chance, but its going to be higher successes for the intelligence guy. The players are usually good about not stepping on each others toes in the instance of playing the "smart guy" or the "strong man" etc... [/QUOTE]

Verification